Back to Davy Jone's Locker...for now

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/pirate-bay-file-sharing-website-sweden-police-raid/story?id=27498033

The popular site for illegally downloading media such as music, movies, and TV shows, Pirate Bay, has been taken down by a raid on the servers in Stockholm, Sweden. The website has completely disappeared from the Internet, marking the biggest raid on the site in recent history. Pirate Bay's original co-administrator, who is no longer involved, expressed indifference and hopes that if the site resurrects, it'll be better than it was before as he expressed disappointment in what it had become. As for the site's eventual fate, no one has any delusions that it'll stay sunk for long. Administrators are already formulating new ways to avoid authorities and bring the site up again.

I don't have any strong opinions on the topic of pirated media, but I don't think it's as big of a deal as authorities think it is. The creators of the media still get a good amount of money from their work, and if it reaches a wider audience their work will be promoted. Among those who see it in an illegal setting will be people who like it well enough to support it with their money by legally buying merchandise or future media. The temporary destruction of Pirate Bay won't change the illegal media trade in the long run. After all, who doesn't like free stuff?

Our prison system is broken

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-execution-stayed-amid-mental-health-dispute/

The execution of convicted murderer Scott Panetti has been halted on an appeal of mental illness. Panetti's lawyers say he is too delusional to qualify for capital punishment and have been trying to get Panetti a new competency test. There have also been other appeals to the Supreme Court, saying that mentally ill people cannot be executed if they cannot understand why they are being punished. Critics have said that Panetti's mental state has not change much since he was given his last competency test, and no court has found him insane. In 2002 , justices prohibited the execution of the mentally impaired, but 5 years later they said the mentally ill could be put to death if they understood why they were being punished. Panetti was sentenced and convicted in 1995 for the murder of his estranged wife's parents. In court he was his own lawyer, dressed in a purple cowboy outfit, and attempted to subpoena over 200 witnesses including Jesus and the pope. He also claims that Satan is working through the justice system to try and get him executed for preaching the Gospel.

I think that if this guy really is mentally ill and does not understand completely why he's being punished, then he shouldn't be given the death penalty. Capital punishment, I think, should really only be reserved for really dangerous killers who cannot be redeemed. I'm a huge believer in trying to reform prisoners and give them the help they need so that they don't resort to crime once they're released. I don't think that locking people up and treating them poorly is going to make anything better, especially in the case of mentally ill prisoners. If a prisoner has a broken leg or a heart problem when they come in, the prison will take them to a medical facility to treat that. Why isn't is the same for the mentally ill? Why are they locked up and punished for things they can't control? We should be helping these people, not condemning them to death.

The age old question continues: where does life begin?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/personhood-colorado_n_6104120.html

Earlier this month Colorado voters rejected a measure that would have granted developing fetuses personhood rights under the 14th amendment. Consequences of this amendment, had it passed, would include harsher punishments for people who cause the death of a pregnant woman's baby and the criminalization of women who get abortions. It would also call into question the legality of in vitro fertilization and certain kinds of contraception. This is the third time that this particular bill has been rejected in Colorado, and other states such as Mississippi and South Dakota have also rejected similar bills in the past.

While I am no supporter of abortion, I am a supporter of a woman's right to make her own decisions about her body and her life in general. I don't like the fact that this bill would criminalize women who get abortions and possibly make illegal in vitro fertilization and certain contraception. Women who find themselves in such a situation that they feel an abortion is their only way out should under no circumstances be treated with judgement or hate. These women likely recognize the gravity of their actions, and there is no need for people to make them feel any worse about it. These women must be treated with love and support so that they don't feel alone or trapped, as feelings like this very well may have caused them to get an abortion in the first place.

Protection of election integrity or discrimination?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/us/supreme-court-upholds-texas-voter-id-law.html?_r=0

On October 18th, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could use its stricter voter ID laws for the November elections. These ID laws state that in order to vote, citizens must present a photo ID. While that doesn't seem too bad, opponents of the ruling state that the court's action could deny the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of otherwise eligible voters. Opponents also argue that a disproportionate number of these voters who will be barred from voting by the new law are African American or Hispanic. The process for obtaining a Texas state issued ID is also difficult as travel times to agencies issuing IDs can be upwards of 3 hours for some people.

I honestly don't know what to think about this. It seems ridiculous that racial discrimination at the polls could still be a thing, and one has to wonder why these hundreds of thousands of voters don't have photo IDs (Don't they drive? Don't they at least have a gun license or a passport lying around? Do they only have unacceptable forms of ID such as student IDs or tribal IDs? Surely they have something.) However, I can kind of see where the opponents of this ruling are coming from. I don't know anything about where these voters are coming from, and if I were in their position I'd be really ticked off if I couldn't vote just because I didn't have an ID. But at the same time, I can see how the use of IDs would prevent illegal aliens and resident aliens from voting, which is something we definitely don't want. It's a complicated issue.

What happens in Deadwood, stays in Deadwood.

http://www.blackhillsfox.com/home/headlines/Voters-to-decide-future-of-Deadwood-gaming--280122492.html

One of the issues you'll find on the ballot this year is called Amendment Q. If voters say yes to this amendment, gambling games like roulette, keno, and craps will be allowed in Deadwood. Supporters are saying it will give a much needed boost to Deadwood's declining gambling industry, an industry that has supported the town for 25 years. If the gambling industry is allowed to decline, many people will lose their jobs and the town will lose an important source of revenue. Opponents, however, say it will only make worse the problem of gambling addiction in South Dakota. It is estimated that at least 18,000 people are gambling addicts, and 3,600 of those people will commit suicide due to their addiction.

This is a tough issue for some, and these gambling addicts do need help from one source or another, but allowing a small town to go into economic decline because of their problems benefits no one. They'll still gamble no matter what games are legal, and we can't change that. Adding a greater variety of games to Deadwood's casinos will give the town an economic boost and hopefully revive the industry. If I could vote, I would vote yes on this amendment.

Voting in the South Dakota Senate election? Here's what you need to know.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/campus-election-engagement-project/rick-weiland-vs-mike-roun_b_6018636.html

With the South Dakota Senate race as close as it is, it can be tough to figure out who you should vote for. Sure you know the candidates' parties, but what do they really stand for? The Huffington Post has provided a quick and dirty cheat sheet for just that, without the political spin (yes really). So here's the low-down:

All candidates support raising the debt ceiling and believe that humans are contributing to climate change, and none of them signed a pledge to oppose the raising of taxes to increase federal revenue, so you don't really have a choice there.

If you are in favor of:

•  a Constitutional Balance Budget Amendment
• the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited independent political expenditures by corporations and unions 
• limited government mandates and/or subsidies for renewable energy
• repealing Obamacare 
• the 2013 shutting down of the government to defund Obamacare
•  high restrictions of who can get abortions 
• an employer's ability to withhold contraception from employees if the employer doesn't agree with it morally

and against:

• the DISCLOSE Act, which would require key funders of political ads to put their names on those ads
• raising the minimum wage
• the Dodd-Frank Act, which established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
• federal spending as a means of increasing economic growth
• the refinancing of student loans at lower rates, paid for by increasing taxes on income over a million dollars
• government action to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
• gay marriage
• enacting more restrictive gun control legislation 
• the D.R.E.A.M. Act, which would allow children brought into the country illegally to achieve legal status if they've graduated from high school, have a clean legal record, and attend college or serve in the military
• the comprehensive immigration plan passed by the Senate in 2013, which includes a pathway to citizenship and increased funding for border security
• efforts to legalize marijuana
• Planned Parenthood recieving public funds for non-abortion health services 
• increasing taxes on high income individual and corporations to pay for public services

Then you should vote for Mike Rounds

If you are in favor of: 

• the DISCLOSE Act, which would require key funders of political ads to put their names on those ads
• raising the minimum wage
• extending unemployment benefits beyond 26 weeks
• the Dodd-Frank Act, which established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
• federal spending as a means of increasing economic growth
• the refinancing of student loans at lower rates, paid for by increasing taxes on income over a million dollars
• government action to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
• government mandates and/or subsidies for renewable energy
• gay marriage
• enacting more restrictive gun control legislation (specifically required background checks)
• the D.R.E.A.M. Act, which would allow children brought into the country illegally to achieve legal status if they've graduated from high school, have a clean legal record, and attend college or serve in the military
• the comprehensive immigration plan passed by the Senate in 2013, which includes a pathway to citizenship and increased funding for border security
• efforts to legalize marijuana
• Planned Parenthood recieving public funds for non-abortion health services 
• partial privatization of Social Security
• increasing taxes on high income individuals and corporations to pay for public services

and against: 

•  a Constitutional Balance Budget Amendment (probably) 
• the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited independent political expenditures by corporations and unions 
• repealing Obamacare 
• the 2013 shutting down of the government to defund Obamacare
•  high restrictions of who can get abortions 
• an employer's ability to withhold contraception from employees if the employer doesn't agree with it morally

Then you should vote for Rick Weiland. 

If you are in favor of: 

• the DISCLOSE Act, which would require key funders of political ads to put their names on those ads
• raising the minimum wage
• the Dodd-Frank Act, which established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
• government action to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
• gay marriage
• the comprehensive immigration plan passed by the Senate in 2013, which includes a pathway to citizenship and increased funding for border security
• Planned Parenthood recieving public funds for non-abortion health services 
• partial privatization of Social Security
• increasing taxes on high income individuals and corporations to pay for public services

and against: 

•  a Constitutional Balance Budget Amendment  
• the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited independent political expenditures by corporations and unions 
• federal spending as a means of increasing economic growth
• government mandates and/or subsidies for renewable energy
• enacting more restrictive gun control legislation 
• repealing Obamacare 
• the 2013 shutting down of the government to defund Obamacare
•  high restrictions of who can get abortions 

Then you should vote for Larry Pressler. 

Yeah, it's a lot. Sorry. But it's an important decision you'll be making if you CAN vote in this upcoming election, so I suggest you read through it and start thinking about it. Personally, I'm really mad that I can't vote in the election now that I know what's at stake. If I had the chance, I would probably vote for Pressler. He seems closest to having a combination of conservative economic policies and liberal social policies, which I what I want out of my public officials. 

Saddam is finally getting his revenge

http://www.ibtimes.com/saddam-era-chemical-weapons-now-under-isis-control-reports-1705144

Recent reports from the Middle East may indicate that ISIS has gotten their hands on Saddam Hussein-Era chemical weapons such as mustard gas which they have used against Kurdish soldiers in Kobani, the Syrian town in danger of being overrun. Witnesses on the ground say that ISIS took over a disused chemical weapons factory in Muthanna and got their hands on weapons left inside. The US initially wasn't concerned as they claimed that ISIS wouldn't be able to even transport anything there safely, much less use it. Reports say otherwise. Pictures taken of Kurdish fighters who were attacked by ISIS show clear signs of chemical burns.

Obviously this is really, really bad. If ISIS has indeed gotten their hands on old chemical weapons and are capable of using them against their enemies, soldier and civilian alike, then this is going to make the fight to get rid of them a lot harder. You can hide from bullets and take cover from explosions, but chemicals get anywhere and everywhere and the damage they do can be horrific. If the world is going to get rid of ISIS, it's going to have to come up with a plan to combat ISIS's new methods, and it's going to have to do it quickly before ISIS can gain more ground.